The Truth of Evolution

[axeplayer]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

[CJO]

2 quick responses to that (note that I did not post the list):

First, you're wrong. Read again, and read more carefully.

Second, in terms of Natural Selection, Artificial Selection (breeding by us) is just a subset of Natural Selection. The most important feature of the environment of domesticated creatures happens to be another species, technologically advanced Homo sapiens. As we overpopulate the planet, this will become true for more and more "wild" creatures as well.

I understand that you need to move the goalposts, since your challenge was answered almost immediately and with a minimum of effort, but there is nothing magical about the "natural" environment. The point is that variation + selection is sufficient to be the engine of change.

Indeed, Darwin makes good use of the analogy to breeding and artificial selection in Origin, so there's nothing heretical about it in Darwinian terms.

[youngborean]

What do you not find satisfactory about that list?

Not unsatisfactory, but peculiar. Plant breeding follows a whole different set of rules and therefore definitions of speciation are radically different (most of the species you listed are defined by "morphological characteristics" such as seed color, and so on). In a general sense this clearly shows speciation (because they are called different species). But there is no reason to assume that because something works in plants this shows a large scale speciation model that is inferred in the theory of evolution.

[axeplayer]

2 quick responses to that (note that I did not post the list):

First, you're wrong. Read again, and read more carefully.

Second, in terms of Natural Selection, Artificial Selection (breeding by us) is just a subset of Natural Selection. The most important feature of the environment of domesticated creatures happens to be another species, technologically advanced Homo sapiens. As we overpopulate the planet, this will become true for more and more "wild" creatures as well.

I understand that you need to move the goalposts, since your challenge was answered almost immediately and with a minimum of effort, but there is nothing magical about the "natural" environment. The point is that variation + selection is sufficient to be the engine of change.

Indeed, Darwin makes good use of the analogy to breeding and artificial selection in Origin, so there's nothing heretical about it in Darwinian terms.

Oh, i'm afraid there really is no need for me to move the goalposts CJO, because the field goal has not been successfully kicked. I asked for examples of speciation through natural selection, and as youngborean pointed out, the listed plants were simply morophological changes. I don't really like how you're trying to bash me just because you do not have any examples whatsoever of speciation through natural selection.

[Nyril]

Double Post.

[Nyril]

The main one is that the speciation of those organisms was artificial, not natural. That is, man selected the corn/plant that they wanted, or they did experiments crossing certain flowers. Until you give an example of how a new species formed due to Natural selection, i will not be satisfied.

Whats the difference? Breeding is breeding. The only difference here is time. Does evolution not work if we're watching it like hawks?

[axeplayer]

The main one is that the speciation of those organisms was artificial, not natural. That is, man selected the corn/plant that they wanted, or they did experiments crossing certain flowers. Until you give an example of how a new species formed due to Natural selection, i will not be satisfied.[/quote

Whats the difference? Breeding is breeding. The only difference here is time. Does evolution not work if we're watching it like hawks?

There is an enormous difference. the difference is that nature by itself cannot produce new species. evolution is based on the theory that new species come about through natural selection.

[Nyril]

There is an enormous difference. the difference is that nature by itself cannot produce new species. evolution is based on the theory that new species come about through natural selection.

Nature can easily produce new species, but you didn't answer my question. Why does it change the situation if the breeding occurs in the wild, or infront of people?

[axeplayer]

There is an enormous difference. the difference is that nature by itself cannot produce new species. evolution is based on the theory that new species come about through natural selection.

Nature can easily produce new species, but you didn't answer my question. Why does it change the situation if the breeding occurs in the wild, or infront of people?

Really? Is that so? How is it then no one in the history of the world has ever witnessed the creation of a new species through natural selection?
I'm afraid I did answer your question. The situation changes in the fact that evolution takes place in nature, not by people. The people are doing the changes, not nature. And according to evolution, it happened in nature, not by the help of people. So this drastically changes the situation.

[bigmrpig]

There is an enormous difference. the difference is that nature by itself cannot produce new species. evolution is based on the theory that new species come about through natural selection.

Nature can easily produce new species, but you didn't answer my question. Why does it change the situation if the breeding occurs in the wild, or infront of people?

Really? Is that so? How is it then no one in the history of the world has ever witnessed the creation of a new species through natural selection?
I'm afraid I did answer your question. The situation changes in the fact that evolution takes place in nature, not by people. The people are doing the changes, not nature. And according to evolution, it happened in nature, not by the help of people. So this drastically changes the situation.

No one has observed it because it is theoretically impossible to observe. Any offspring made by two animals of the same species is the same species as it's parents. A species is a group of animals able to reproduce with each other (and make offspring that can reproduce, eg. Ligers aren't the same species as Tigers and Lions because they typically cannot reproduce, only in rare cases, but I digress). Any small change made through natural selection of a single generation would be far too minute to make it unable to reproduce or be considered a new species. Hundreds or thousands of these changes, theoretically, could however. I may not be able to reproduce with an ancestor I have of thousands of generations ago, and THAT is what makes new species. The distinction can only be made in hindsight, and among direct ancestors, no single line can be drawn as to where one species ends and another begins.

[axeplayer]

Its impossible to observe? So you're saying that if a reptile gives birth to a creature with frayed scales, we wouldn't be able to see it? I'm afraid we could. There were scientists a long time ago too. they most likely did experiments on animals wouldn't you think? Yet there are no accounts of evolution ever happening through natural selection.
But let's try to not get off topic, though I understand how much you would like to, since, there is no truth at all in evolution.